Some of those anti-mask laws also have an interesting component: an anti-hood law. That points to the clue that some of these laws were written to protect civil liberties and to deny the ability of KKK (Ku Klux Klan) members the ability to hide their identities while commiting their awful activities. States at which mentions hoods:
District of Columbia [slashdot.org]
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
North Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia.
Note the geographic clustering of the anti-mask/anti-hood law states in the SouthEast United States of America: In some cases these laws originated as anti-KKK laws.

Indeed.To my knowledge I've never seen such things, or been where they are located. (Sometimes I joke that Galion is a risky place to live, because we're only a few miles down the road from North Robinson, which is one of the four top targets for terrorists who want to strike a blow to the US. They'd hit New York, New York; Los Angeles, California; Washington D.C.; and North Robinson, Ohio. This is exactly the kind of joke you think it is.)

However, if I *did* see surveillance cameras around here, I'd just continue to go about my business as usual, because I'd be pretty sure nothing I was planning on doing is the sort of thing they're looking for, anyway

You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.

Your repeated violations of the verbal morality statute have caused us to dispatch the police to deliver corrective suggestion, please remain at your current location.

You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
You have been fined 25 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.

Your repeated violations of the verbal morality statute have caused us to dispatch the police to deliver corrective suggestion, please remain at your current location.

Comparing that with the sheer amount of minor traffic and littering violations that occur in almost every larger city in the world, I don't think those measures are bad. At all.Here in my country the fines for the above infractions are mild and the law is never applied. There's plenty of occasions where I am the only guy waiting at the pedestrian red light. I celebrate whenever I see someone who walks their dog and actually picks up the feces. I have seen policemen littering the sidewalks with empty cigarette packs.

Fine all those motherfuckers. Also fine me if I'm in the wrong, because I want to become more civilized than I am and I know I have bad habits too.

Right - it's a matter of degree. If they were sprouting up absolutely everywhere, clearly for the sole purpose of tracking, I'd have an issue with it. But where I live, there are a only a few government-owned CCTV installations around. Only in downtown cores or on streets with nightclubs with a particular history of drunk idiots or crime etc. They aren't installed as a matter of course - just in 'risky' areas. And they're always signposted ("this area is covered by CCTV" signs). They do prove useful in arre

What does "a tool in specific places for specific purposes" have to do with anything? That test is positive for both warm fuzzy pillows and medieval iron maidens.

Cameras will never be absolutely everywhere, since that is physically impossible, nor will they be "clearly for the sole purpose of tracking" since government will always claim they are for legitimate law enforcement. Which tracking may soon become.

" If it starts growing towards a big network of surveillance-for-surveillance's sake, then yeah, I

That's called a "slippery slope" argument. Do I care about my private phone calls/internet history? Yes. Do I care about cameras in a public space? No, not really. I'm actually able to do this amazing thing called "make a distinction". Apparently, you are not.

Actually, I care a very little about cameras in a public space. I certainly don't love them, but I don't think they're really a big deal, as long as I'm also allowed to take pictures in a public space. Of, say, cops. But public space is a very differe

Trouble is that it is a true slippery slope. Do you want your wife to know of your platonic affair with your secretary just because her brother had a job at the right desk? Do you want the government to log a visit to a prostitute or smutt shop? Or dealer, or D&D parlour? Or just being at a football game while you should have been at work.
We all infract on the law or various people's ideas of what should be law (much of which would conflict) many, many times. And times change so that what was no

If you're going to purposely break the law, it's your own responsibility and you'd better take appropriate precautions. Of course you don't want them to know you did something illegal. And that's part of the point of the cameras. To keep certain areas free of drug dealers and other such predatory scum.

If the law changes in the future, it doesn't matter what you've done in the past. If you can't agree to a proposed new law, then the onus is on you to either campaign against it, change your behaviour or move somewhere else. That's just how society works.

You fail to see the problems. Most of us are 'cheating assholes' in one way or another. Even if it is just skipping gym because you really don't feel up to it tonight. No one is perfect not should be forced to live their life by an algorithm the (changing) government prescribes.
And you have forgotten your McCathy because retrospective associations were made.

Well yep, nobody is perfect, but people should still be held accountable to their own actions. Skipping the gym is only hurting yourself, not other people. If I've made a promise to someone, I'm going to do my best to keep that promise. If I fail to keep a promise, I deserve what's coming to me.

I don't know what you're talking about with the McCathy thing. Do you mean McCarthy? I'm not a privacy nut, so I don't know what you're referring to even if it's McCarthy.

What if my insurance company monitors it to decide how much they will charge. It depreciates the value of insurance against your mistakes.

Well, that sounds pretty reasonable. Insurance should be based on your risk level. I don't see an insurance company monitoring CCTV though. Maybe looking at a list of crimes or accidents.

Yeah, I hate politics and I'm not American, so I didn't know about it:p Things like that can happen with or without CCTV. As for profiling and America's extreme attitude with foreign and political policy, it's a separate issue IMO.

Thankfully these days the ease of communication and the fact that public lives are even more

The point is that no one else *should* know. It's non of their goddamned business whether you went to the gym or not. It's NOT about who you're hurting. It's about who gets to know what about you, and *why*.

I feel a similar, but more specific: "look at meeee, I'm a fuzzy blob! You can't tell if I'm a human or a goat at that image quality level so I don't care." Hurray for 640x480 equivilant analog signals for budget reasons, lol.

I was going to shoot for "Meh", but I guess the modern internet is made for people who grew up in a "with us or against us, pick a side NOW" political environment, leading to the given choices of "must devote absolutely every waking second to destroying these obvious eldritch abominations against all that is sane and just in our perception of reality, nay, in any possible concept of reality that can exist in the cosmos" or "HERRRRRRP A DERP ME LOVES TEH GUMBERMINTS CUZ ME SO DUMB AND PART OF TEH PROBLUMS DERP". Oh, well. The internet was good while it lasted!

Or what about "buy a laser flare and mount it on a hat"? Laser flares project a near IR laser beam 360 degrees around and 30 degrees up and down, they're designed to show up on night vision kit without dazzling the S&R pilot, but they work equally well at causing lots of lens flare on CCD based cameras and making your face essentially invisible.

The cattle option is "Ah, perfect safety and security." The other 5 options suggest violence. There are no peaceful middleground options. Well, not in this poll. There are in real life, but Slashdot polls don't reflect real life.

Is there centralized monitoring and sharing of some non-govermental CCTV feeds? Sure, there probably is. Is EVERY private CCTV system integrated into it? Of course not. Most aren't even networked.

Not networked yet. Do you think that number will go up or go down as time goes on, if things remain the same? Do you think the NSA is going to ask permission or inform the systems' owners if they decide to intercept some private web-connected CCTV video stream?

How about grumble and moan about lack of privacy & trust, and the absence of any true security... but yet roll over and do nothing about it?

just what are we supposed to do? Here in the US it's not like you can actually vote against the oppressive surveillance state. Your average citizen doesn't have anywhere near enough to buy our politicians back from the corporate interests. One of the things I hoped when Obama was elected the first time was he would roll back some of the more obtrusive illegal internal spying programs initiated by Bush after 9/11 and actually make the government more transparent as he promised. Instead he's been far worse th

Which is why we have to start voting third-party wherever possible. Are a lot of them potentially dangerous fanatics that would destroy our way of life if given the chance? Sure. Will they ever get the chance? Almost certainly not. Are fanatics harder to buy than "normal" politicians? Almost certainly. Moreover even if the Libertarians (for example) managed to somehow get a majority in congress, the party itself is so fragmented that they would be unlikely to be able to agree on much beyond dismantling

..is destruction of private or public property. I might think "how sad" (excessive cameras in low crime public areas) or "what a waste of money" (speeding cameras) or "good this place needed a camera, too many people getting mugged there" or "if this were my store, I'd have cameras too."

CCTV in schools [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] are in bathrooms and changing rooms. The GOVERNMENT controls these cameras and tries to assure us that the footage from these cameras is secure. Bullshit.

I've seen websites which show photographs and map locations of CCTV cameras covering public spaces and coverage areas. Problem is I think they've been taken down citing national security concerns, and I can't remember URLs. I would like to see such sites up again.'Cos you know what? CCTV cameras have NEVER been the single deciding factor in solving crime. Why? Because they're too low resolution. At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage (and that's pretty narrow for a CCTV eye). They do NOT prevent crime, as the Home Office's own figures show, that since the most CCTV'd city in the world - London - has never had a year in its history where the crime rate has dropped.

At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage

At that distance and angle of view, even 1920X1080 (1080p HD) won't be able to separate the eyes on a face. Put a 15X optical zoom on either of those cameras and you'll be able to count their teeth, but that camera will have to be manually operated.

16 or more megapixel cameras are available that can do the job really well. But, 16MP network cameras run in the $7-10,000 range.

The solution? Lots of low res cameras so that there is one close to the action.

If the cameras are as useless as you claim, why are they being installed? I thought it was so big brother could monitor us all and invade our privacy? So how does that work if they can't tell us apart?

And according to this [wikipedia.org] various categories of crime in London (e.g. murder, robbery) have certainly gone down in recent history (I don't see stats for all crime, and don't think they'd be relevant to a discussion of street based cameras). Whether that's because of or despite the presence of cameras I have no ide

CCTV cameras are mostly targeting petty crimes - at least, that's the official line. And in a way it makes sense, for a shop a CCTV camera can be useful to keep an eye on those hidden corners, and to detect shoplifting. In that way it may prevent would-be shoplifters.

On the streets, CCTV cameras may help police reacting faster to say street fights, that is, as long as someone is actually watching those video feeds in real time. Which usually doesn't happen, maybe with an exception of known trouble hotspots

CCTV in schools [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] are in bathrooms and changing rooms. The GOVERNMENT controls these cameras and tries to assure us that the footage from these cameras is secure. Bullshit.

I've seen websites which show photographs and map locations of CCTV cameras covering public spaces and coverage areas. Problem is I think they've been taken down citing national security concerns, and I can't remember URLs. I would like to see such sites up again.'Cos you know what? CCTV cameras have NEVER been the single deciding factor in solving crime. Why? Because they're too low resolution. At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage (and that's pretty narrow for a CCTV eye). They do NOT prevent crime, as the Home Office's own figures show, that since the most CCTV'd city in the world - London - has never had a year in its history where the crime rate has dropped.

What, you mean investigators can't magically increase the pixel density on a digital image by shouting "ENHANCE!" at the computer screen over and over???

What I think when I see CCTV of any sort is first, to check if something valuable is around and then second, when I realize it is not a bank or something, I get a creepy feeling that someone wants too much control and thinks that monitoring is a good way to help them achieve those ends.

For myself, I can easily destroy any monitoring equipment if it becomes necessary to do so, so why do they infringe on my desire t

CCTVs could be used right but in most cases the police just puts them up in dangerous areas so they can have an excuse for not having a cop on the corner. People get mugged in front of them every day. They do provide some evidence now and then though, provided that a case gets to court.

One camera may be cheaper than one cop. Twenty cameras may be cheaper than one cop. But do they also have the same amount of 1) crime prevention and 2) increase of sense of security? That should be the real calculation. But somehow I have the feeling that it has never been done like that.

Oh and assuming you're talking about the US: one thing that also may help there is for cops to start walking/cycling like they do in other cities while on patrol. Not just driving around what I've been told many times is th

That is my usual reaction. Many cameras actually have a tiny web server on them, and are hooked up on IP/PoE networks. There are several in my city that are accessible because they were never locked down correctly:)

I know its totally the wrong feeling to have, but when I see a CCTV camera I look around and feel safe.

The caveat on this is that I still see cameras in some places and think "OMG, They can see me naked!" But if I'm wandering around in (most) public places I find my brain thinking "Oh wow.. well, if I get roughened up by some nice gentlemen at least the police will be able to find the gents who did this to me and give them a stern talking to and a discouragment for that sort of future activity" [1]

Every time I see cameras I typically think, "Oh great, here I am, a socially awkward computer geek. My strange walking pattern is totally going to make me look like a shop lifter or some other type of criminal."

Maybe you've read about those red-light cameras that were all the rage a while back. I've never seen one, and it wouldn't matter if I did - I don't run red lights, so it's not an issue. If you really followed those stories, you also read about the large number of communities where the citizens got pissed off and decided to have them removed. So the towns did. Not everywhere, certainly, but in enough places to convince me that after they were put up, it wasn't "too late".

You have the right to anonymity. You have the right not to be photographed. Argue with me: Muslims get to wear full face coverings so they don't get photographed for "religious reasons", why can't I as a white man who values his privacy do the same, only with an LED that you can't even see when it's switched on?

Oh, here [maplin.co.uk]'s a decent little gadget. You can use a timer circuit to pump a higher voltage through without causing damage, it'll also give you the opportunity to try and make it lase which will vastly i

You don't get to decide that for other people. If you think it's a waste, then it is a waste for you. However, if someone else doesn't think it's a waste, then it isn't a waste for them. I personally think any vote for a party I don't actually like is a waste.

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

Clearly voting for a major party candidate is more pragmatic than voting for a third party candidate

I think that depends on the timescale.

If you don't like the common agenda of the main parties and you keep voting for one or another of them, you send the message that what they are doing is acceptable. At one time you could have responded to this by boycotting the election or spoiling your ballot, but that doesn't work any more. Not voting at all is simply seen as apathy, and spoiling your ballot makes

If you want the political landscape to change, you have to vote for third-party candidates. It won't happen overnight; it may not happen in your lifetime. But if you want change it's a lot more pragmatic than validating existing practice.

In the last year, the UK has seen a massive rise of "fourth-party" (not what we call them) candidates. The Liberal Democrats used to be the choice of many people who didn't want to vote for the largest two parties (Labour and Conservatives). They got into government at the last general election, but they've fallen out of favour for most people, and some much smaller parties have gained.

Depends on your goals and values. Sure, a third party candidate is vanishingly unlikely to win, on the other hand your vote may help their party cross the tipping point to qualify for federal campaign funds in the next election and perhaps get the media attention necessary to start making a real difference - after all they don't even have to field a candidate with a realistic chance of winning to start affecting policy, they just need to attract enough of the vote that the major parties worry about losing crucial support and try to change their policy to appeal to the "renegade" voters.

And if you don't perceive either major candidate as being significantly less bad than the other then your vote is wasted by voting for either, whereas working toward adding a new voice to the debate might actually be worthwhile.